"The fact that Penn State will offer fewer scholarships over a period of four years does not plausibly support its allegation that the reduction of scholarships at Penn State will result in a market-wide anticompetitive effect, such that the 'nation's top scholastic football players' would be unable to obtain a scholarship in the nationwide market for Division I football players," Kane wrote, according to AP.

Although none of this is too surprising, there was an interesting part of Kane's decision.

Kane did acknowledge that an argument against the NCAA and its penalties could have some merit.

"In another forum the complaint's appeal to equity and common sense may win the day, but in the antitrust world these arguments fail to advance the ball," Kane said.

It's hard to say Penn State shouldn't have accepted the NCAA's harsh penalties, which seemed to overstep its bounds and were unprecedented in not giving Penn State the same due process other schools get. It was an obvious public relations and grandstanding move by the NCAA, but at the time, Penn State probably felt backed into a corner. But had it not accepted the penalties, the ensuing lawsuits probably would have been very interesting.

Now the school is watching as people basically sue on its behalf, whether it is the governor or the family of Joe Paterno, which recently announced plans to file suit against the NCAA. Maybe that lawsuit has a better shot than Gov. Corbett's Hail Mary.

- - - Want to join the conversation? Hit us up on Twitter @YahooDrSaturday and be sure to "Like" Dr. Saturday on Facebook for football conversations and stuff you won't see on the blog.